Feb. 3, 2012

Question: Indiana Senate Bill 89 would give schools boards the option to teach various theories on the origin of life. If the bill becomes law, do you think your school board should opt to introduce this into the curriculum? Why or why not?

• I'm with Pastor Steve Viars, who wrote a Feb. 1 guest column, on this one -- we make all the information available to students. I can handle the "home" portion with my own child.

Carol Sikler

Lafayette

• The statute, as I read it, does not specify that creation theories be taught in a science class. I'm sure an English class can properly cover all that is outlined in the statute, leaving science classes free for actual science. Sign me up for the session that talks about the Earth being carried on the turtles' back!

Gale Charlotte

West Lafayette

• Paraphrasing physicist Richard Feynman: Science comprises that body of knowledge that can be put in the form "if I do A then B will happen." Any body of knowledge that allows itself to be continually tested in this manner qualifies as science and thus deserves a place in a school science curriculum.

Ephraim Fischbach

West Lafayette

• Why not? With school vouchers out there, some schools could use it as selling point to attract students.

Mark Acles

Lafayette

• Creationism is not science. Plain and simple. If I want my child to learn about what the Bible says, I'll take him to church. If my child's school decided to teach this, I would find another school. This is like using Star Wars as a basis to teach about life on other planets.

Mike Dudgeon

Lafayette

• The bill as amended allows nothing new. But if schools are going to teach about religion, there are far more important aspects than comparative theories of origins. For instance, the Bible simply as a literary source -- without which you cannot understand most of the canon of great English literature -- is more important.

Roger Wm. Bennett

Lafayette

• It's very simple. Evolution is science, creationism is religion. Public schools should teach science, not religion. Private schools should teach science, if they want to be accredited, and religion, if they so choose. Parents should get a tax break if they pay for their kids to go accredited private schools.

(Page 2 of 6)

Jim Cook

Delphi

• Why must it be turned into compulsory law? Even if we stick to science, they are all just differing theories unable to be proved at this point in time.

Edward Priest

Battle Ground

• I believe that we should teach creation science because you cannot prove the big-bang theory. I know some science teachers who hate the idea because they say the other theories are unscientific. What makes the big-bang theory scientific? Why is Darwin's theory of evolution taken as fact?

Deborah Kingdollar

Colfax

• First, evolution does not and, by definition, cannot describe the origin of life -- evolution merely chronicles the process that has produced today's state of being. Ipso facto, the question, as posed, is nonsense.

Ed Posey

West Lafayette

• The state can and should require students to attend a class on comparative religions. Problem solved.

David Dobbin

West Lafayette

• Yes, creation should be taught alongside the other theories. Give students all information, and they can decide for themselves. What are the evolutionists afraid of?

Diana Vice

Rossville

• Introduce creationism into the curriculum of our schools as long as they do not teach from Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or Scientology. Not only would these points of view be confusing, I feel as a Christian that they would be dead wrong. America is a Judeo-Christian nation, and our schools should reflect that.

Carolyn Foust

Lafayette

• The school curriculum should also include an alchemy in chemistry course and an astrology in astronomy program. If we include all religions, we should include the folklore of the Kato Indians of California, who believed that during the creation of the world the creator took along his dog.

Alan Beck

West Lafayette

• Because it cannot be duplicated, evolution is not a law of science but a theory. Creationism is a theory as well. So evolution and creationism should share equal time in the classroom. And, any theory is equally valid until it has been proven to be false.

(Page 3 of 6)

Ken Maniak

Lafayette

• The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions. Decades ago when this debate first started the consensus was: Let parents and churches teach the various religious views, and let the science teacher teach evolution. Separation of church and state was a good idea back then; it's still a good idea today.

Jim Derringer

Lafayette

• Science is the study of the physical laws of God's creation. Religion is the study of the relationship between God and man. I think we have elected idiots.

Furman A. Powell

Lafayette

• Yes, I hope they include a course such as this. It has the potential to broaden the horizons of high school students beyond any beliefs that their parents, their teachers or other influential people might hold. Any opportunity to help students understand other perspectives is good. But it should not replace a biology class.

Jolene K. Miller

Lafayette

• This issue is a further attempt to push Indiana into the dark company of the deep Southern states, where ignorance, prejudice and small-mindedness define political life. For the first time I am considering whether I want to remain in the state of my nativity. This is shameful.

Brian Capouch

Monon

• School boards already have the right to present religious tenets in the appropriate curriculum, such as social studies or comparative religion. Religious beliefs should not be taught as scientific theories.

Eric Thiel

West Lafayette

• To interpret and teach the Bible one must be educated as a minister; as hardly any school teachers have the qualifications, leave that subject up to the church of choice. Evolution also must be taught by a well-versed person and ought to be taught as to fact and theory.

Harold Williams

Shadeland

• The origin of life should be taught in religious places of worship and in homes by parents who choose to do so. School boards already have their hands full dealing with myriad topics, many of which have little or no educational value in this day and age.

(Page 4 of 6)

Jim Yeoman

Lafayette

• "May offer instruction on various theories" sounds like comparative religion class, which could be a good thing. Teaching about Vishnu, Xenu, Muhammad, angels, etc., in science class seems far-fetched. I assume, however, this bill gives leeway for schools to say, "Here's the theories. Of course, they're all baloney except the dominant one locally."

Rick Mummey

Lafayette

• Creationism, like other religious faiths, is based on a deity creating man and life on Earth. This is not science just a belief based on faith that the Bible is true. Science teaching is for science learning not teaching religion. Churches are for teaching religion keep it that way.

Ray Faber

Crawfordsville

• Education comes from exposure to many possible solutions. I believe it to be wrong to teach evolution as "the" answer but thinking people are open to all possibilities. There are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are people reading it.

E. Lloyd Wells

Lafayette

• Webster defines theory as speculation or contemplation. Webster defines teach as provide knowledge and insight. The question is: Why wouldn't a great teacher want all the theories on the table? Promote hard science and critical evaluation of all theories of the origin of life. That will serve students best.

Mike Webster

Linden

• I would simply like the theory of evolution to be taught as that -- a theory. I don't think a bill was needed for that. I'd rather public schools not get into teaching theories from religions. Just point out that the prevailing theory is just that -- a theory.

Larry Farr

Lafayette

• Yes. These principles were taught ages before Darwin came along or a school board was ever invented. Why would you want to stifle a young mind from genuine thought processes and come to their own conclusions? Why do educators fear these teachings? That should be your question.

Thomas W. Anderson

Lafayette

• I have no problem with the bill as written. However, legislators surely have more important issues to discuss such as local government simplification, drug testing for the legislators and the like. Seems like the short session should be made shorter.

(Page 5 of 6)

Wayne Merriman

West Lafayette

• I do not believe the bill has any right to invade on the private life of families. I do not want my children taught any part of religion that anyone else has for their American right. I have my own American right and cannot be moved.

Shelby Branstetter

Lafayette

• Common sense says a design as elaborate as our universe could not have resulted from an explosion. The origin of life was accepted in America's schools for hundreds of years. Then "enlightened" educators cast aside common sense to teach foolishness. If foolishness is taught, certainly the common sense approach should be taught as a viable alternative.

• I think that teaching various creation myths from around the world would be a valuable part of any social studies curriculum. But teaching Christian creation myth as a part of a science class makes a mockery of scientific method.

Kurk Bright

Battle Ground

• Evolution is scientific fact and theory. The Genesis account of creation is a story. Such stories, however much people believe them to be true, are not scientific fact and have no place in a biological science curriculum; they belong, rather, in a cultural anthropology course or in a church's religious education class.

Jo Ann Mullen

Lafayette

• The conservative assault on logic and reason continues. This embrace and perpetuation of unscientific ignorance is arrogant, immoral and shameful. Mitch Daniels and his Republican accomplices have made Indiana the laughingstock of the nation.

Jeffrey All

West Lafayette

• (Science: Knowledge that can measured precisely.) Can science, scientifically prove how the universe came to start -- how time, space, matter came to exist? Just when and how it all started seems up for some debate, so I see nothing wrong with teaching different forms of how we came into existence.

(Page 6 of 6)

Dennis Donoho

Sedalia

• Faith is faith, and science is science. Science is in the curriculum, faith is not. I have no problem with teaching creation science as philosophy or English. It might be good to teach theories of origin from other cultures, as well. Let's keep religion and science separate.

Jean Wadley

Lafayette

• This is an assault on the Constitution and our children's education. This kind of nonsense is designed to make people distrust science and education. It can only harm our children's future -- our nation's future. An educated population is essential for a stable democracy and a stable economy.

David Hovde

Mulberry

• I'm all for it! A well-constructed study of comparative religions has produced many a rational freethinker with the courage to question his own, and if there's anything we need now, it's rational freethinkers.

Gordon Clark

West Lafayette

• Republican pandering to the religious right. Don't work on job creation efforts we really need, but focus on this pabulum for your zealots who demand all believe as they do. Another piece of legislation not asked for nor needed. Status quo is just fine. Jobs not right to work and religious pandering please.

Bud Wang

Lafayette

• The bill is clearly unconstitutional, violating separation of church and state. It's foolish that legislators would even consider it given the landmark case, Kitzmiller vs. Dover (Pa.) School District. In that case, the school board eventually paid more than $1 million in court costs to those challenging creation science in schools.

Randy Myer

Lafayette

• Don't teach fairy tales as science. As long as they teach it in a class on mythology and give equal time to the different myths, then that's fine. Problem is, you know the only one that will be treated with anything but derision is the Christian myth.

Michael Hrejsa

Fowler

• Will this be taught in a comparative religions class, where it belongs? Surely they don't mean to inject religious philosophy into a science class? How about we try to teach science to politicians instead? No, never mind, we would have better luck teaching pigs to fly.

Pat Rund

Romney

• No. This just further enforces the false belief that all theories have some validity. All theories do not have some validity. The truth is found in God's word. My kids have been taught that there is no other truth.